[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25469-25474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11900]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Tech-Prep Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of final requirements, final priorities and final 
selection criteria for new awards in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and 
subsequent years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education 
announces requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under the 
Tech-Prep Demonstration Program (TPDP). The Assistant Secretary will 
use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for new 
awards made in FY 2003, and may use them in later years. We intend 
these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to support the 
four basic education reform principles underlying the No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): Stronger accountability for results, 
increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, 
and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. We 
take this action to clarify the Department's expectations regarding 
this program, so that TPDP-funded projects will help students, schools, 
and teachers in their efforts to improve student achievement, meet high 
standards for high school graduation, and increase transition and 
persistence rates in postsecondary education.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These requirements, priorities and selection criteria 
are effective June 11, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Stratman Clark, U.S. Department 
of Education, OVAE, MES Room 5223, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington 
DC 20202-7100. Telephone: (202) 205-3779 or via Internet: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final notice establishes program 
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for the TPDP, which is 
authorized by section 207 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III). TPDP provides grants to 
consortia to carry out tech-prep education projects

[[Page 25470]]

that involve the location of a secondary school on the site of a 
community college, a business as a member of the consortium, and the 
voluntary participation of secondary school students. We intend to fund 
projects that, following an initial recruitment period, will enroll a 
new student cohort in each year of the project, in addition to 
continuing support for each previous TPDP student cohort.
    We published a notice of proposed requirements, proposed priorities 
and proposed selection criteria in the Federal Register on Friday, 
January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3517). In that notice, we discussed (on pages 
3517 though 3519) the proposed requirements, priorities, and selection 
criteria for this year's TPDP competition and subsequent competitions.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed 
requirements, proposed priorities, and proposed selection criteria, six 
parties submitted comments. An analysis of the comments, and of any 
changes made as a result of comments submitted, follows.
    We have grouped major issues by subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical or other minor, non-substantive changes, or suggested 
changes, which the applicable statutory authority does not authorize us 
to make. Specifically, we have made technical changes to Priority 3 to 
clarify when we will award points for this priority.

Project Period

    Comment: Three commenters were concerned with the proposal to 
extend the TPDP project period from three to five years. They expressed 
concern that this extension of the project period, coupled with the 
plan to fund the entire grant award from FY 2002 funds, would reduce 
the amount of funds available per year and reduce the number of grants 
to be funded.
    Discussion: The decision to extend the project period from three to 
five years is based on a number of factors. By statutory definition, 
under section 202(a)(3) of Perkins III, tech-prep programs combine at 
least two years of secondary education with a minimum of two years of 
postsecondary education in a nonduplicative, sequential course of 
study. Federal funding of three-year projects under the first TPDP 
competition was not intended to support entire four-year tech-prep 
projects. With an expanded five-year project period, grantees will have 
both a lengthy tech-prep recruitment phase, and sufficient time for the 
first cohort of students to complete the entire four-year tech-prep 
program. Furthermore, five-year funding will allow the grantees funded 
under this year's competition and the Department to fully evaluate the 
effectiveness of the funded projects. The Department believes the 
estimated average size of awards accurately reflects what are likely to 
be relatively low costs of the first year's recruitment efforts, as 
well as costs associated with the four-year instructional program. 
While the expanded project period may serve to reduce the number of 
grants to be awarded, the Department believes that funding fewer 
projects to implement complete tech-prep programs serving significant 
numbers of students is preferable to funding a greater number of 
projects that would implement only partial tech-prep programs. However, 
regarding the estimated amount of funds available per year, the 
Department has also decided to use both the FY 2002 and the FY 2003 
TPDP appropriations for this year's competition, which will serve to 
almost double the estimated amount of TPDP funds available for grant 
awards. See the ``Estimated Available Funds'' section in the notice 
inviting applications published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.
    Changes: None.

Assurance Regarding Start of Classes

    Comment: Three commenters were concerned with the proposed grant 
schedule. If TPDP grants were to be awarded in August of 2003, the 
commenters were concerned that grantees would have insufficient time to 
launch their projects by September of 2003.
    Discussion: Requirement 3 states that successful applicants must 
enroll the first student cohort and must begin classes ``no later than 
September of the calendar year after the year in which the grant award 
is made.'' For this year's competition, this would mean September of 
2004. This proposed time frame will allow funded projects a full year's 
time to recruit their first cohort of students and begin classes by 
September of 2004. Indeed, as is discussed in response to an earlier 
comment, providing sufficient recruitment time was one of the reasons 
we proposed to expand the project period.
    Changes: None.

Full-Time Enrollment Requirement

    Comment: Three commenters were concerned about the requirement that 
eligible applicants enroll students full time in the program. They 
argued that this ``guideline'' would eliminate applicants with part-
time programs from the applicant pool as well as significantly expand 
the scope of the currently funded TPDP projects.
    Discussion: The requirement for full-time enrollment is based on 
the statutory language in section 207 of Perkins III, which 
specifically requires that funds be used to ``enable eligible consortia 
to carry out tech-prep education projects that involve the location of 
a secondary school on the site of a community college.'' For purposes 
of the TPDP program, the Department does not consider part-time 
programs to be ``secondary schools'' and has concluded that the full-
time enrollment requirement is necessary in order to fund programs 
under this competition that meet fully the intent of section 207. This 
will not, however, alter the scope of currently funded TPDP projects. 
Rather, it applies only to new projects funded under this year's 
competition and perhaps in future competitions.
    Changes: None.

Evaluation Requirement

    Comment: One commenter recommended enhancing the program evaluation 
and outcomes assessment.
    Discussion: The Department believes that the TPDP evaluation 
requirement, which is now more rigorous than that in the first TPDP 
competition, is sufficient for the program. The evaluation requirement 
now provides that a funded TPDP project must use an experimental or 
quasi-experimental design in the evaluation of the project. It further 
stipulates that funded TPDP projects also must carry out an evaluation 
to determine the impact of the project on a comprehensive set of 
student outcomes, including academic and technical skills achievement, 
high school graduation, enrollment and completion of postsecondary 
education, postsecondary remedial coursework, and labor market entry.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Three commenters were concerned about the proposed data 
reporting requirements regarding postsecondary persistence and 
completion, and labor market entry. They felt that greater resources 
should be allocated to support this data collection effort.
    Discussion: The Department recognizes that by undertaking this data 
collection and reporting effort, some projects may incur additional 
costs. Consequently, the projected range of awards has been increased 
from the last competition.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 25471]]

Proposed Priority 1--Highly Qualified Teachers

    Comment: Three commenters were concerned that, as proposed, 
Priority 1 would require community colleges seeking TPDP funds to meet 
the teacher quality standards of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act (ESEA), as amended by the NCLB, Federal legislation that does not 
govern postsecondary institutions. They believed the use of this 
proposed priority would extend NCLB into an inappropriate arena.
    Discussion: By its nature, the TPDP is a collaborative effort 
between secondary and postsecondary education. For this reason, it is 
appropriate to include priorities that reflect the focus of NCLB with 
respect to a component of a TPDP project taught by a secondary teacher. 
Our examination of currently funded TPDP projects revealed two 
different models for providing core academic classes--one in which 
secondary teachers taught core academic classes on the campus of the 
community college and another in which postsecondary instructors taught 
core academic classes for dual high school and community college 
credit. However, as it was not the Department's intent to expand the 
applicability of NCLB's provisions beyond elementary and secondary 
education and into the arena of community college hiring, the proposed 
priority has been revised.
    Change: Under Priority 1 as revised, we will give competitive 
preference by awarding up to five additional points to applications 
that: (a) Require all secondary teachers teaching core academic 
subjects to be highly qualified, as such term is defined by section 
9101(23) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; and (b) require all 
postsecondary teachers teaching core academic subjects to meet State 
standards for community college faculty.

Eligibility Requirements

    Comment: One commenter urged the Department to allow technical 
centers to apply for TPDP funding. This individual believed that 
technical centers have both the resources and the expertise to house a 
successful tech-prep high school.
    Discussion: Section 207 provides that funds are to be used to 
``enable eligible consortia to carry out tech-prep education projects 
that involve the location of a secondary school on the site of a 
community college.'' In light of this statutory requirement, a 
technical center that serves students on a full-time basis may be a 
TPDP site only if it is located on the campus of a community college.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that community colleges play a 
greater role in tech-prep programs.
    Discussion: The TPDP already places community colleges in a pivotal 
role in the development and implementation of tech-prep programs, given 
that the statute requires eligible consortia to implement tech-prep 
education projects that involve the location of a secondary school on 
the site of a community college.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that community-based 
organizations (CBOs) be encouraged to play a greater role in tech-prep 
programs.
    Discussion: While section 207 does not identify CBOs as required 
members of eligible consortia, it does not preclude their 
participation. Thus, CBOs are eligible for consortium membership, or 
may serve some other function in a TPDP project, should an applicant 
choose to include them.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter thought that four-year colleges and 
universities should be involved in tech-prep curriculum reform efforts.
    Discussion: Under the provisions of section 207(d), tech-prep 
articulation agreements with four-year institutions cannot be supported 
with TPDP funds. However, section 207 does not preclude the 
participation of four-year colleges and universities in a TPDP project. 
They are eligible for consortium membership if an applicant chooses to 
include them, and they can participate in curriculum reform efforts 
within the context of the TPDP project.
    Change: A change has been made. For information purposes, 
``Allowable Costs'' and ``Unallowable Costs'' sections have been added 
to this notice immediately following the ``Requirements'' section. 
These sections indicate, among other things, that articulation 
agreements with four-year institutions cannot be funded under the TPDP 
and discuss the allowability of several other types of costs about 
which we frequently receive questions.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that one of the required 
partners in the grant application be a tech-prep consortium.
    Discussion: The requirements for membership in a TPDP consortium 
are taken from the statutory language in section 204(a) and section 
207(b) of Perkins III. A tech-prep consortium under section 204, which 
receives funds under the State Tech-Prep Education Program, would not 
necessarily be eligible for funding under the TPDP because section 204 
does not require inclusion of a business member. In contrast, section 
207 specifically states that TPDP funds may only be awarded to a 
consortium that includes a business member.
    Change: None.

Academic Preparation for Postsecondary Education

    Comments: One commenter stated that tech-prep programs should be 
academically rigorous in order to support the transition from high 
school to college for more students, and that tech-prep programs should 
avoid tracking and serve a diverse student population. The commenter 
also recommended that recruitment and retention strategies be geared 
toward minority students.
    Discussion: All students participating in TPDP projects should be 
expected to meet or exceed State academic standards and to enroll in 
postsecondary education. This expectation is reflected in the ``Project 
Design'' and ``Project Evaluation'' selection criteria. As to the 
commenter's recommendations that TPDP recruitment and retention 
strategies be geared toward minority students, the TPDP has several 
provisions related to special populations aimed at assisting students 
to overcome barriers that might interfere with recruitment or 
retention, or otherwise prevent them from succeeding in a TPDP project. 
While minority students are not necessarily special population 
students, minority students would be included in the definition of 
``special populations'' to the extent that they are economically 
disadvantaged or single parents, face other barriers to educational 
achievement, including limited English proficiency, or otherwise meet 
the definition of ``special populations'' in section 3(23) of Perkins 
III. There are already several criteria factors in this notice that are 
intended to address the needs of all special population students. In 
addition, section 207(d)(3) of Perkins III requires the Secretary to 
give ``special consideration'' to consortia submitting applications 
that meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) of 
section 205(d). Specifically, section 205(d)(3) addresses dropout 
prevention and the needs of special populations. Also, section 
205(d)(5) addresses how tech-prep programs will help students meet high 
academic and employability competencies. In order to more fully 
implement the statutory requirement that special consideration be 
provided

[[Page 25472]]

to certain applications--including applications addressing dropout 
prevention and special populations--and in response to this comment, in 
addition to the points to be awarded to applicants based on the 
selection criteria and Priorities 1-3, the Department will award five 
additional points to applications that address, among other things, 
dropout prevention and the needs of special population students. Also, 
in response to the commenter's additional concerns, we note that in 
section 204(c)(5) of Perkins III, recruitment and counseling activities 
are stated to be key tech-prep components that must be geared to 
meeting the needs of participating students.
    Changes: A change has been made. A ``Special Considerations'' 
section has been added to this notice, immediately before the 
``Selection Criteria'' section, wherein we state that, in addition to 
the points to be awarded to applicants based on the selection criteria 
and Priorities 1-3, the Department will award five additional points to 
applications that: (1) Provide for effective employment placement 
activities; (2) Effectively address the issues of school dropout 
prevention and reentry, as well as the needs of special populations; 
(3) Provide education and training in career areas or skills in which 
there are significant workforce shortages, including the information 
technology industry; and (4) Demonstrate how tech-prep programs will 
help students meet high academic and employability competencies.

Uses of Funds

    Comment: One commenter requested funds to survey workplace 
literacy, English as a Second Language (ESL), General Educational 
Development (GED), and basic education programs in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin.
    Discussion: Since the programs identified appear to be adult 
literacy programs rather than tech-prep education programs, the 
proposed activity would not be allowable under TPDP.
    Change: None.

Project Period

    We have concluded that funding multi-year projects for a project 
period of five years entirely from the FY 2002 and FY 2003 
appropriations is necessary for TPDP grantees to meet fully the 
statutory purposes of section 207 and the requirements of this notice. 
Such a funding arrangement will enable projects to engage in an 
adequate recruitment effort to meet their enrollment goals, and to 
implement both the full, two-year secondary component and the full, 
two-year postsecondary component of the TPDP project for the first 
student cohort during the grant award period.

Requirements

    To achieve the purposes of section 207 of Perkins III, we establish 
the following requirements. These requirements will apply to all 
applicants seeking funding under this competition.
    (1) Each applicant must submit a signed Consortium Agreement 
(Agreement), providing evidence that each of the categories of 
membership required under section 207 has been satisfied, and that each 
of the required members is eligible for membership under the provisions 
of Perkins III. The Agreement must contain a signature of commitment 
from any participating secondary school, community college, and 
business member, affirming that those entities have formed a consortium 
to develop, implement, and sustain a TPDP project as described under 
section 207 of Perkins III. The Agreement also must describe the roles 
and responsibilities of each consortium member within the proposed 
project. The format for the Agreement will be included in the 
application package.
    (2) Each applicant must submit enrollment goals for the number of 
students in each student cohort to be enrolled in each year of the TPDP 
project.
    (3) Each applicant must provide an assurance that it will enroll 
its first student cohort and begin classes no later than September of 
the calendar year after the year in which the grant award is made, and 
enroll its second, third, and fourth student cohorts by September of 
each subsequent year of the proposed project.
    (4) Each applicant must submit a complete Proposed Project Course 
Sequence Plan (Plan) to demonstrate how the proposed instructional 
program represents a sequential, four-year program of study that meets 
the specific criteria set forth in sections 202(a)(3) and 204(c) of 
Perkins III. The Plan must list the course sequences for each program 
of study within the proposed TPDP project, describing the specific 
academic and technical coursework required for all four years of the 
program. The Plan also must summarize program entrance requirements and 
specify the associate degree or postsecondary certificate to be earned 
upon completion of the program. The format for the Plan will be 
included in the application package.
    (5) Each TPDP-funded project must involve a secondary school 
physically located on the site of a community college and provide a 
complete program of academic and technical coursework at the community 
college that, at a minimum, meets State requirements for high school 
graduation. Students must be enrolled full-time in the high school on 
the community college campus. However, enrolled students may 
participate in extracurricular activities at their original high 
school. Proposed projects that involve only the ``virtual'' location of 
a secondary school on the site of a community college, and projects 
that involve only satellite community college sites located on the 
premises of secondary schools, are not eligible for support under this 
competition.
    (6) Each TPDP-funded project must carry out an evaluation to 
determine the impact of the project on a comprehensive set of student 
outcomes, including: Academic and technical skills achievement; high 
school graduation; enrollment and completion of postsecondary 
education; postsecondary remedial coursework; labor market entry; and, 
to the extent feasible, earnings or earnings increase after program 
completion. In conducting this evaluation, each TPDP project must use 
either an experimental design, in which students are randomly assigned 
to the demonstration program or another program, or a quasi-
experimental design, in which each program participant is matched with 
a non-participant possessing similar pre-program characteristics, such 
as test scores on State academic assessments, grade point average, 
class rank, technical coursework or course of study, and socioeconomic 
status.
    (7) Each TPDP project must submit annual reports of anticipated 
enrollment. The reports of anticipated enrollment must include the 
number of students in each cohort enrolled for the coming year and, if 
that differs from the enrollment goals stated in the approved 
application, the reasons. The reports of anticipated enrollment will be 
due at the end of April of each project year.
    (8) Each TPDP project must submit annual project performance 
reports and a final project performance report. Both the annual and 
final performance reports must summarize the TPDP project's progress 
and significant accomplishments, with respect to both the process of 
implementation and the outcomes of student participation; provide data 
regarding enrollment, persistence, and program completion for each 
student cohort; identify barriers to continued progress and outline

[[Page 25473]]

solutions; include a progress report on and an analysis of the findings 
of the project evaluation; and review prospects for sustained 
operations after the cessation of Federal support. The annual and final 
performance reports will be due within 90 days of the end of each 
project year and of the end of the project, respectively.
    Funded projects will be required to comply with all requirements 
adopted in this notice. Failure to comply with any applicable program 
requirement may subject a grantee to special conditions, withholding, 
or termination.

Allowable Costs

    Allowable activities and expenditures for TPDP projects include, 
but are not limited to: Recruitment and enrollment of students; staff 
hiring; updating of articulation agreements; curriculum revision; 
professional development for secondary and postsecondary faculty, 
counselors, and administrators; and development and maintenance of 
business and industry partnerships. In addition, section 207(b)(2) 
specifies that TPDP projects may provide summer internships at a 
business for students or teachers.
    Section 207 gives applicants latitude for innovation. For example, 
although tech-prep education by definition includes at least two years 
of education at the secondary level preceding high school graduation 
and two years of postsecondary education or apprenticeship training, 
section 204(c)(3)(B) authorizes tech-prep programs that allow students 
to concurrently complete both secondary and postsecondary courses, and 
simultaneously satisfy requirements for a high school diploma and an 
associate degree or other postsecondary credential.

Unallowable Costs

    (1) Supplanting. In accordance with section 311(a) of Perkins III, 
funds under this program may not be used to supplant non-Federal funds 
used to carry out vocational and technical education activities and 
tech-prep activities. Further, the prohibition against supplanting also 
means that grantees are required to use their negotiated restricted 
indirect cost rate under this program. (34 CFR 75.563.)
    Because of the statutory prohibition against supplanting, we 
caution applicants not to plan to use Federal funds awarded under 
section 207 to replace non-Federal funding that is already, or that 
otherwise would be, available for support of the TPDP projects to be 
assisted. Further, we are concerned that TPDP funds may be used to 
replace Federal student financial aid. We wish to highlight the fact 
that the statute does not authorize us to fund projects that serve 
primarily as entities through which students may apply for and receive 
tuition and other financial assistance.
    (2) Construction. Under EDGAR (34 CFR 75.533), TPDP grants cannot 
be used for the acquisition of real property or construction.
    (3) Articulation Agreements with Four-Year Institutions. Under the 
provisions of section 207(d), tech-prep articulation agreements with 
four-year institutions cannot be supported with funds awarded under 
section 207. However, articulation agreements with four-year 
institutions can be developed using other resources by applicants who 
wish to establish ``open-ended'' tech-prep career pathways. Also, the 
inclusion of institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate 
degrees in TPDP consortia is allowable under section 204(a)(2)(A).

Special Considerations

    In addition to the points to be awarded to applicants based on the 
selection criteria and Priorities 1-3, under section 207(d)(3) of 
Perkins III, we award five additional points to applications that:
    (1) Provide for effective employment placement activities;
    (2) Effectively address the issues of school dropout prevention and 
reentry, as well as the needs of special populations;
    (3) Provide education and training in career areas or skills in 
which there are significant workforce shortages, including the 
information technology industry; and
    (4) Demonstrate how tech-prep programs will help students meet high 
academic and employability competencies.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, we 
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register. (A 
notice inviting applications under this program is published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.) When inviting 
applications, we designate each priority as absolute, competitive 
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority 
follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either 
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent 
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority 
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i); or (2) selecting an application that meets 
the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit 
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational 
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the 
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over 
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Priorities

Priority 1

    Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by 
awarding up to five additional points to applications that: (a) Require 
all secondary teachers teaching core academic subjects to be highly 
qualified, as such term is defined by section 9101(23) of the ESEA, as 
amended by NCLB; and (b) require all postsecondary teachers teaching 
core academic subjects to meet State standards for community college 
faculty.

    Note: ESEA defines the term ``core academic subjects'' as 
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign 
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and 
geography.

Priority 2

    Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by 
awarding up to five additional points to applications that require each 
participating student, as a condition of high school graduation, to 
pass at least one high school-level test (either a comprehensive test 
covering a variety of courses in a subject area or a high school end-
of-course test) in each of English or language arts, mathematics, and 
science. To receive any points under this priority, applicants must 
describe their specific high school graduation requirements.

Priority 3

    Under this priority, we will give competitive preference by 
awarding up to five additional points to applications that offer the 
proposed TPDP project as an additional alternative for students 
attending high schools that have not met adequate yearly progress (AYP) 
for two or more consecutive years, as defined by section 1111 of the 
ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and 34 CFR 200.13. To receive any points 
under this priority, applicants must: (a) Provide evidence that at 
least one high school served by a consortium member (under 204(a)(1)(A) 
of Perkins III) has not met AYP for at least two consecutive years; and 
(b) provide an assurance that eligible students that are transferring

[[Page 25474]]

from this high school will be given a genuine opportunity to enroll in 
the TPDP project.

    Note: Each State published a list of ``school improvement'' 
schools for the 2001-02 school year last summer or early fall. Based 
on the transition language in the ESEA, these schools are also in 
school improvement for the 2002-03 school year. Applications from 
consortia that have a member (under 204(a)(1)(A) of Perkins III) 
serving at least one school on the list for the 2002-03 school year, 
will be eligible for a competitive preference under Priority 3.

Selection Criteria

    We establish the following selection criteria to evaluate 
applications for new grants under this year's competition and perhaps 
subsequent competitions. The maximum score for all of the following 
criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion and sub-
criterion is indicated in parentheses.
    (a) Quality of the project design. (40 points)
    In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, 
we consider the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates its readiness to 
implement a complete, career-oriented, four-year program of study, as 
evidenced by a formal articulation agreement concerning the structure, 
content and sequence of all academic and technical courses to be 
offered in the proposed tech-prep program and, if applicable, the 
conditions under which dual credit will be awarded. (8 points)
    (2) The extent to which the proposed instructional program will 
meet high academic standards that equal or exceed those established by 
the State. (4 points)
    (3) The extent to which the applicant has aligned its secondary 
academic and technical course offerings and requirements for program 
completion with the entrance requirements for the corresponding 
postsecondary degree or certificate program. (4 points)
    (4) The extent to which the applicant presents a detailed student 
recruitment plan that is likely to be effective in fulfilling the 
project's enrollment goals for each year of the project. (8 points)
    (5) The extent to which the proposed project will provide 
comprehensive academic and career counseling and other support services 
to participating students at both the secondary and postsecondary 
levels, to ensure their persistence in the program and attainment of a 
postsecondary degree or certificate. (8 points)
    (6) The extent to which the proposed project will provide high-
quality, sustained, and intensive professional development for 
instructors, counselors, and administrators involved in the program. (8 
points)
    (b) Quality of the management plan. (15 points)
    In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed 
project, we consider the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the management plan outlines specific, 
measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the 
proposed project. (5 points)
    (2) The extent to which the management plan assigns responsibility 
for the accomplishment of project tasks to specific project personnel, 
and provides timelines for the accomplishment of project tasks. (5 
points)
    (3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to 
achieve the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)
    (c) Quality of project personnel. (15 points)
    In determining the quality of project personnel, we consider the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability. (5 points)
    (2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director. (5 points)
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of key project personnel, including teachers, counselors, 
administrators, and project consultants. (5 points)
    (d) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
    In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, 
we consider the following factors:
    (1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the participating institutions. (5 
points)
    (2) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are 
reasonable in relation to the objectives and design of the proposed 
project. (5 points)
    (e) Quality of the project evaluation. (20 points)
    In determining the quality of the evaluation, we consider the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the application presents a feasible, 
credible plan for project evaluation and includes: the type of design 
to be used; outcomes to be examined; and how participants will be 
assigned to the program or matched for comparison to non-program 
participants. (10 points)
    (2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide reports or 
other documents at appropriate intervals to be used for continuous 
program improvement. (4 points)
    (3) The extent to which the proposed evaluation will be conducted 
by an independent evaluator with the necessary background and technical 
expertise to carry out the evaluation. (6 points)

    Note: With points awarded under ``Special Considerations,'' 
Priorities 1-3, and the selection criteria an application may 
receive a maximum of 120 points.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
Order is to foster intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 74-79.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.


    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.353.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 2376.

    Dated: May 7, 2003.
Carol D'Amico,
Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 03-11900 Filed 5-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P